Summary: Gathings granted a Deed of Trust to Countrywide, later succeeded by Bank of America. The Deed of Trust included the correct Property Identification Number and physical address, but had an incorrect legal description. The property was subsequently sold at a foreclosure sale for homeowners dues to CPI, which did not discover the Deed of Trust in favor of Bank of America.

Summary: PHH Mortgage assessed $472.25 in post-petition fees against the Debtor’s loan, but did not file and serve a notice pursuant to Rule 3002.1(c) of these fees within 180 days, asserting that these fees were not presently recoverable against the Debtor or their residence and will not be collectible unless the Debtors’ Chapter 13 case was dismissed or converted. PHH asserted that it was required by N.C.G.S.

Summary: Debtors sought authority to quitclaim their previous residence in Florida to the SBA, which held a mortgage against the property but had declined to foreclose. The bankruptcy court first held that 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a), while property may be “surrendered”, the Bankruptcy Code does not define that term but it has “has been described as the relinquishment of all rights in property, including the right to possess the collateral.” IRS v. White (In re White), 487 F.3d 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2007); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.06[4] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J.

Summary: More reasonably equivalent value discussions in the Tanglewood Farms case. Commentary: Not every order granting avoidance of a judgment lien or for relief from the stay on a car are treated as a written opinion,  but maybe since these  reasonably equivalent value cases are becoming nearly as common, they will stop being treated as such. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Ange

Summary: Following the confirmation of its Chapter 11 plan and closure of the bankruptcy, the Debtor was sued in state court for a pre-petition debt by a creditor that was unknown at the time of filing of the bankruptcy and unlisted in the schedules. The state court directed the Debtor to re-open the bankruptcy case for a determination of whether the debt was discharged.

Summary: The Debtor, 71 years old, was married until her husband died in 1999. At the time of his death, he was the sole owner of a house and land, purchased in 1962, with a mortgage signed by both the Debtor and her husband, and which the Debtor later inherited, pursuant to his will. Upon filing bankruptcy, the Debtor sought to claim the increased “widow’s” exemption of $60,000 in the property, based on N.C.G.S.

Not only do payday lenders apparently spend generously on lobbyists,  but also seem to compensate  their lawyers rather nicely and without limit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw See:  Moses v. Cashcall

Summary: In a case involving multiple corporations and transfers back and forth from the Debtors’ household bank accounts and corporate accounts, the Trustee and a major creditor sought a denial of discharge against the debtors under 11 U.S.C. § 727. After reviewing and finding that the Debtors displayed several of the “badges of fraud”, see West v. Abdelaziz (In re Abdelaziz), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 591, at *7-8 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb.

Summary: Despite being provided with evidence in the form of cancelled checks and insurance policies showing that they were not delinquent in their mortgage payments, Citimortgage commenced foreclosure against the Nances.  After refinancing their house, the Nances brought suit against Citimortgage alleging, among other causes of action,  unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and negligent and/or intentional damage to credit report.  Citimortgage moved to dismiss. As to the unfair and dec

Summary: Effective February 23, 2011, federal regulations may have settled the question about whether federal benefits, including Social Security and VA benefits, that are exempt from garnishment or execution by judgment creditors and bankruptcy trustees retain that exempt status if commingled with other non-exempt funds. 31 C.F.R. § 212.3 applies to garnishment, which is defined to include “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other legal process” (Emphasis added), which should include actions by a bankruptcy trustee.